19 more votes per electorate

It’s a bit distressing to see the blog No Minister crossing its fingers for bad weather in the hope that we’ll get a low voter turn out. I assume it’s being facetious, but everyone, no matter what our political leanings, should want as many people as possible participating in the election this Saturday. If you or your friends or family have not enrolled to vote you still can. If you are a permanent resident you may not know it but you are probably eligible to vote and you can still enrol today and tomorrow. And, if you want to make an occasion of it why not join DJ Mikey Havoc at one of the many Great New Zealand Vote parties around the country.

Last election the Greens missed out on a 7th MP getting into Parliament by only 1,246 votes – or 0.0545% of the total. That’s only 19 votes per electorate. One more Green MP would probably have meant Winston Peters and Peter Dunne would not have been cabinet ministers for the last three years. It would have meant stronger action on climate change, safe healthy food, accessible public transport, warmer, drier homes and real solutions for the end of cheap oil. Well three years have gone by since then and now, with the financial crisis, it’s more urgent than then. So remember last election it only took 19 votes to make a difference in your electorate.

The goal of the Green Party was never to shut down criticism of the government, so if you are right and that’s all it does, then we got it wrong.

Congratulations on your win. Now you get to show us your stuff, rather than just talk about it. I sincerely hope the new govt follows through with a multi-party approach, and involving citizens as well would even be better.

1. The National Party solution is not to just repeal the EFA. They have said quite clearly they want to work on a multi-party solution to its replacement.

2. You are confused with regard to the Act’s real objective. It was not passed to stop money “corrupting” politics. It was passed to restrict our right to critiicse the government in election year.

It is perfectly possible to circumvent the Act’s provisions and donate unlimited amounts of undelared money to a political party. Disclosure is optional. I have pointed this out before.

3. You are correct however when you say that, if elected, I would be happy to sit down with the Greens to discuss electoral law. I would welcome that. You are however incorrect in saying my leader has ruled this out. He hasn’t. I am sure he would welcome it.

Finally, whatl I am doing is campaigning for the solution the HRC proposed. Simply start again.

I’m not proud of the EFA in its current form. But my fear is not that we work to make the law better – even if that means replacing it entirely – but that the “solution” from National and Act is simply to repeal the EFA. This will take us back to the old, also very flawed situation we had before where money will be allowed to corrupt the political process.

You said you’d be happy to sit down with Greens and sort this out after the election if you get in, but your leaders have already decided and will not allow this meeting to occur. This is also a huge threat to democracy in New Zealand.

Its fine for you to pontificate on the current law, but if your fix is not robust, then you are mouthing empty words.

I’m really intrigued as to what your “real solutions for the end of cheap oil” might be.

On second thoughts, no I’m not.

It’s just an excuse to deprive us of our freedoms. War is, as they say, the health of the state. If it’s not “global warming” or inequality it’s “the war on drugs” or “the end of cheap oil.” Anything to justify the state taking control of our lives – with you political types helping each other into positions of power over us.

Getting 19 extra votes per electorate is actually harder than you think. Every extra Green voter who turns up at a polling booth is likely to be matched by about 10 extra voters for other parties, and that will mean the percentage of votes (which is what counts) probably won’t change much.

Valis, you are quite correct. The HRC’s final statement does not call for the final version of the bill to be thrown out.

The HRC’s final statement was made AFTER the the HRC had been ignored. The HRC made it very clear in its written submission, and repeated in its oral submisison on 18 October, that the bill should be withdrawn and parliament should start again. The Greens ignored that.

Once the HRC saw it was going to be ignored, it looked to make the best out of a bad situation.

It wanted a furthur round of full public consultation. This was also ignored.

When this became apparent, it suggested the charade of the email option.

You are also correct to say positive changes had been made. One of those positive changes was to delete the requirement that we should all sign a written declaration before a JP before we spend a single dollar expressing any political view. I am pleased to think you feel we should be grateful for this small mercy. It is a pity the Greens did not support the HRC in its submission of a 3 month regulatory period.

The EFA is an absoute disgrace and a blot on our nation’s history.

It is nothing for the Greens to be proud of.

There are still 2 days to go, but on the basis of the current polls tonight it would seem quite possible that one of the three parties that supported the EFA will no longer be in parliament, while the other two will be opposition.

If that proves to be so, it will be a fitting reward for their combined efforts in supporting the EFA. It will also be a lesson to all future politians who consider something similiar.

“The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”

Their submission was on the original bill. The Green Party made it clear that it would not support the bill as introduced. But the HRC’s final statement does not call for the final version of the bill to be thrown out. It says that positive changes had been made, while noting they still had concerns. The HRC proposed the bill be reopened for submissions or at least that every submitter be advised of the changes to the bill when it was reported back so their views could be made known to MPs. The later is what was done.

Toad is not like that, he is a decent chap with one huge redeeming factor in that he is a cricket fan.

Toad also knows he is by far my favouirte commie and one of the few true reds that I could sit down and have a beer with, I would end up paying of course as all socialists are well known for their long pockets and short arms.

> Does anybody see the irony in Jeannette signing the stomachs of pregnant ladies when she is such a fierce supporter of abortion?

> Perhaps she would have been better to have written “One only” instead of vote for me.

she’s not a ‘fierce supporter of abortion’. She’s not in favour of it being illegal, just like she’s not in favour of cannabis being illegal, but I’ve never heard her push abortion to reduce the birth rate or prevent the birth of children with deformities or anything like that, which is what I would expect a ‘fierce supporter of abortion’ to call for.

“It is to decriminalise possession of cannabis (by adults) for personal use. There is no way we want to see a cannabis industry similar to the liquor and tobacco industries developing, which would be what would happen if it were totally legalised.”

I believe that any democratic society should advocate for the highest possible voter participation within the electoral process and events leading up to election day. This ensures that the Government that is elected represents the views/values/beliefs of the people (to some degree).

Maybe a first step to encourage higher participation would be the removal or at least an overhauling of the Electoral Finance Act?

National Business Review has raised concerns that the Crown Law ruling on Bill of Rights consistency with the Electoral Finance Act may not have been sound.

It has been shown many times that next to no correlation exists between money and election results in NZ. One can simply look at election spending returns in comparison to the electoral outcomes.

Was the Electoral Finance Act necessary?

– Not attempting to hijack the discussion, but the Electoral Finance Act controversy should be noted, as the Green party was among those parties that voted for the legislation.

“It shouldn’t recieve any special treatment from the govt. Prohibition doesn’t work. Legalise, not decriminalise.”

Prohibition works in Singapore because they have strong disincentives. In New Zealand, where having drugs leads to a wet bus ticket, no wonder prohibition isn’t working – if we made the penalties tougher, then it may just start working

Decriminalisation is NOT the same as legalisation. If the Greens had any guts they would argue for legalisation, not Decriminalisation.

Decriminalisation still suggests that you are doing something wrong, and that you do not own your body – you need permission from the state in order to smoke cannabis. I cannot understand why you should be allowed to consume, smoke and possess cannabis under green policy – but not purchase it.

The Greens (and I’d love it if other liberal parties such as ACT) should just come out and say it. Smoking Cannabis harms noone but the consumer (and those who chose to be around them when smoking) it should be Legal, and treated no differently to other recreational drugs such as alcahol and tobacco. You should be able to buy it over the counter.

It shouldn’t recieve any special treatment from the govt. Prohibition doesn’t work. Legalise, not decriminalise.

Yes, but I needed to clarify that it is posession of cannabis, and only by adults, that would be legalised. The sale or marketing of cannabis would remain illegal, as would supplying it to anyone under 18.

john-ston said: Well, you can thank all those who voted for Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis. Had they cast their vote to the Green Party (who share the goal of legalising that drug)…

Wrong! The Green Party policy is not to legalise cannabis.

It is to decriminalise possession of cannabis (by adults) for personal use. There is no way we want to see a cannabis industry similar to the liquor and tobacco industries developing, which would be what would happen if it were totally legalised. Green drugs policy is all about reducing harm from drugs – blanket legalisation wold have the opposite effect.

It is a bit of a joke for the Greens to suggest they want as many people participating this election day.

That is one of the key points the Human Rights Commission made in its submission on the Electoral Finance Bill.

They concluded at para 10.2:

” A human rights approach to democratic government requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”

The Greens voted to ignore the HRC on this issue and the Electoral Finance Bill has unreasonably restricted and regulated participation in this year’s election since 1 January.

Well, you can thank all those who voted for Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis. Had they cast their vote to the Green Party (who share the goal of legalising that drug), you would have ended up with a seventh member (but that would have come at National’s expense).

I have actually been toying around with some election results from past elections, and it can be quite fun. Luckily, not enough people have cast wasted ballots that might have otherwise changed the government. I don’t think that even with the Greens with seven seats that would have changed much; Labour would have needed the Maori Party, and if I remember correctly, they were the last cab off the rank.